EverNorth — Daily Callers Report

Monday, 07 September 2026

built 08 Sep 2026, 06:10 · America/Toronto
archive
Calls
49
47 out / 2 in
Leads
36
new today
Reached
19
45 answered − 7 vm, 19 short
Qualified
0
good status
Booked
5
moved to 1.4
Messages
142
SMS
Follow-up
38
16 reached, 5 vm, 14 short, 3 missed
Lead→Booked
13.9%
daily rate

Day timeline bar height = call length · grey = no answer · WhatsApp

070911131517192123
Sara
Taha Alfallouss Jr.
08:441:33
outgoing answered
checklist6/26
Kim Thành
08:540:07
outgoing too short
Khush Singh
08:560:06
outgoing too short
Asavant Krisnoputra
08:581:09
outgoing answered
checklist6/26
Kuldeepsingh Rajput
09:000:04
outgoing too short
Onkar Sanap
09:040:03
outgoing too short
Vishal Deshmukh
09:060:03
outgoing too short
Mukul Bhutani
09:070:50
outgoing voicemail
Syed Saqib Ali Hashmi
09:090:00
outgoing no answer
Sabal Kshetri
09:110:09
outgoing too short
Amit Malik
09:132:13
outgoing answered
checklist10/26
Emmanuel Dugtong
09:160:05
outgoing too short
Noel Reji
09:200:06
outgoing too short
Parth Roy
09:220:05
outgoing too short
Tesfaye Boru
09:260:05
outgoing too short
Fasiuddin
09:270:07
outgoing too short
Bakhtiyar Peerzada
09:290:05
outgoing too short
Marlo Hortense
09:300:50
outgoing voicemail
Shantnu
09:353:21
outgoing answered
checklist8/26
Shantnu
09:397:34
outgoing answered
checklist14/26
Fredy John
10:0014:34
outgoing answered
checklist16/26
Soham Shukla
10:260:47
outgoing answered
checklist7/26
Jagdeep
10:300:03
outgoing too short
Bibekananda Chanda
10:380:58
outgoing answered
checklist8/26
Kapil Vats
10:400:49
outgoing voicemail
Jatin Sharma
10:420:00
outgoing no answer
2894661244
10:421:03
incoming answered
Sheldon Wright
10:460:03
outgoing too short
Fasiuddin
11:0110:09
outgoing answered
checklist24/26
Bibekananda Chanda
11:3010:47
outgoing answered
checklist21/25
Asavant Krisnoputra
12:0410:34
outgoing answered
checklist22/26
Harkirat Dhaliwal
12:530:00
outgoing no answer
Richard Mendez
13:082:00
outgoing answered
checklist10/26
Mohammed Shaikh
13:2811:53
outgoing answered
checklist24/26
Reine
no calls
Riya
+17053001108
16:320:11
outgoing no speech
checklist3/26
+17053001108
16:330:35
outgoing no speech
checklist3/26
+17053001108
16:340:06
outgoing too short
+17053001108
16:340:34
outgoing answered
checklist3/26
+17053001108
16:350:36
outgoing answered
checklist4/26
+17053001108
16:440:06
outgoing too short
+14378862998
16:450:06
outgoing too short
+14378862998
16:450:02
outgoing too short
Nazmul Hassan
18:421:36
outgoing answered
checklist9/26
Younus
19:510:52
outgoing answered
checklist6/26
Sagar
20:000:43
outgoing voicemail
2894795739
20:240:00
incoming no answer
Anlin Davis
20:530:15
outgoing no speech
Anlin Davis
20:5414:04
outgoing answered
checklist20/26
Jonathan
no calls

Leads by source 36 total

Meta-Form-PGWP
16
Second Job Morocco
8
Second-Job
6
Landing-PGWP
3
Web-Organic
2
SMM-Organic
1

Speed to lead working minutes · 0 of 36 leads called

no calls matched to today's leads

Conversion by caller

CallerLeadsCallsReached ReachQualifiedBookedBook
Sara Habchi 22 34 14 41.2% 0 2 9.1%
Reine Francis 0 0 0 0.0% 0 1 0.0%
Riya Kathuria 0 15 5 33.3% 0 0 0.0%
Jonathan Gutman 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0%

Daily funnel

Leads
36
Contacted
55
Qualified
0
Consultations
5

Reach peaks when they pick up · last 14 days

16:00–18:00 best connect
14/20
70.0%
20:00–21:00
4/7
57.1%
12:00–14:00
23/71
32.4%
10:00–12:00
66/254
26.0%
18:00–20:00
6/25
24.0%
08:00–10:00
28/131
21.4%
14:00–16:00 worst
0/8
0.0%
average 27.3% over 516 outgoing calls

Lead statuses at end of day one bucket per lead

Consultation booked
0
Not qualified / lost
0
Qualified
0
In progress (contacted)
19
New / no activity
17

Caller activity

CallerCallsTalkSpan FirstLastNotes
Sara Habchi 34 1:18:35 4:44:03 08:44 13:28 208
Reine Francis 0 0:00 — — — 0
Riya Kathuria 15 17:42 14:17:58 06:36 20:54 13
Jonathan Gutman 0 0:00 — — — 0

Leads and first call 36 never called · sorted by delay

LeadCreatedFirst call CallerDelayScore
joevino dsouza 01:11 — Constantine no call —
Maniraj Parthasarathy 01:49 — Sara Habchi no call —
Hariharan N Ponniah 01:51 — Sara Habchi no call —
Mithun Sarkar 02:17 — Sara Habchi no call —
Thomas Vinod 07:06 — Sara Habchi no call —
Navin Gharti 07:32 — Sara Habchi no call —
Keshav Keshav 07:51 — Sara Habchi no call —
MOHAMED BOUASRIA 09:46 — Constantine no call —
Badejo Samuel 10:50 — Sara Habchi no call —
Vishal Bharti 11:13 — — no call —
Rohit Sabharwal 11:59 — Sara Habchi no call —
Anshjit Singh 12:24 — Sara Habchi no call —
Rim Hermessi 12:42 — Constantine no call —
Riahi Sirine 12:57 — — no call —
Salma Sendi 12:58 — — no call —
youness damir 13:21 — — no call —
Ghaith Naili 13:27 — Constantine no call —
A M 13:33 — Sara Habchi no call —
Mehdi Hamam 15:16 — Constantine no call —
Krunal Patel 15:29 — Sara Habchi no call —
Awadhesh Dixit 16:57 — Sara Habchi no call —
Daniel Vina 17:49 — — no call —
Hatem Jarboui 18:25 — — no call —
Malek Sarray 18:52 — — no call —
Louis Tieu 19:37 — Sara Habchi no call —
rafeh sakwali 19:37 — — no call —
mohamed lachtar 20:15 — — no call —
Sreenath pulikkal 20:25 — Sara Habchi no call —
Amritpal Singh 21:34 — Sara Habchi no call —
Nicolas Uribe Arias 21:42 — Sara Habchi no call —
Akshay Jadav 21:52 — Sara Habchi no call —
ਜਸ਼ਨ ਤੇਜੇ 21:58 — Sara Habchi no call —
Jaskaran Saini 22:12 — Sara Habchi no call —
Rohith Shajan Kolamkanny 22:47 — Sara Habchi no call —
Rohith Kolamkanny 22:49 — Sara Habchi no call —
Suraj De 23:14 — Sara Habchi no call —

Booked consultations 5 today

ClientSourceBooked by Lead createdBooked at
Hrutvik Dhaigude Meta-Form-PGWP Sara Habchi 04 Sep 06:12 08:28
Shadab Malek Landing-PGWP Sara Habchi 02 Sep 15:36 10:31
Shivank Khanna Landing-PGWP Anshuman Mishra 27 Aug 13:38 11:44
Jovan Alexander George Meta-Form-PGWP Anshuman Mishra 11 Aug 12:25 18:29
Mohammed Ali Faizan Syed Landing-PGWP Reine Francis 08 Jul 02:05 20:22

SMS 129 sent · 13 received · 50 contacts

Reply rate
20.0%
10 of 50 conversations
Median reply
174 min
client's first answer
CallerSentReceived ContactsStartedRepliedReply
Sara Habchi 110 8 35 32 7 21.9%
Reine Francis 19 3 18 18 3 16.7%
Riya Kathuria 0 2 1 0 0 0.0%
Jonathan Gutman 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Waiting for a reply 6 conversations where the client wrote last

Thomas Vinod 07:07 · Reine Francis 1013 min
After 10:00 am
Keshav Keshav 07:52 · Reine Francis 967 min
5PM-9PM
Taha Alfallouss Jr. 08:31 · Sara Habchi 928 min
Hello im available, u can call me anytime
Francis Dela Cruz 08:35 · Sara Habchi 925 min
You have the wrong phone number I AM NOT FRANCIS. Forget this phone number. He gave you the wrong one
Mohammed Shaikh 12:43 · Sara Habchi 677 min
Okk
A M 13:36 · Riya Kathuria 623 min
5PM-9PM

WhatsApp calls 1 calls · 0 out / 1 in · 0:05 talk

3 agents not reporting — WhatsApp calls from Reine, Sara, Jonathan are missing from this report
CallerCallsOutIn ReachedTalkMatched
Sara Habchi 1 0 1 1 0:05 1/1
Reine Francis 0 0 0 0 0:00 0/0
Riya Kathuria 0 0 0 0 0:00 0/0
Jonathan Gutman 0 0 0 0 0:00 0/0

Agents recording software on callers' machines

CallerLast seenStatus
Reine Francis 07:28 (5682 min ago) offline
Riya Kathuria 06:07 (3 min ago) running
Sara Habchi 14:10 (960 min ago) offline
Jonathan Gutman — offline

Call reviews 25 of 19 live conversations

Sara Habchi Taha 08:44 · 1:33 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and addressed the lead by name, establishing a personal connection. She also attempted to confirm contact details by proposing a WhatsApp call to improve communication.

What went wrong

The call ended prematurely due to technical issues, preventing any meaningful discussion about the lead's goals or eligibility. Important qualification questions and next steps were not covered, and no consultation was offered or scheduled.
Sara Habchi Asavan 08:58 · 1:09 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, and addressed the lead by name. She successfully scheduled a specific callback time, locking in a date and time for follow-up.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any information about the lead's immigration status, goals, or background, nor did she present any program details or offer a consultation. The call was very brief and focused only on scheduling a callback, missing opportunities to engage the lead further.
Sara Habchi Mukul 09:07 · 0:50 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company, and mentioned the lead's name Mukul. The message was polite and professional, explaining the reason for the call regarding permanent residency application assistance.

What went wrong

This was a voicemail with no live conversation, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead. No message was left beyond the initial greeting, which reduces the chance of a callback.
Sara Habchi Amit 09:13 · 2:13 10/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and identified the company, addressing the lead by name and confirming a callback time, saying 'I will schedule the call for 11am.' She was transparent about the lead's current ineligibility, explaining the situation clearly without making any illegal promises.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather key information such as age, education, language proficiency, or work experience, nor did she assess eligibility or present any program options. No next steps were offered beyond a callback, and contact details were not confirmed. The call ended without summarizing agreements or handling any objections.
Sara Habchi — 09:30 · 0:50 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company in the voicemail, mentioning the lead's name and the purpose of the call.

What went wrong

This was a voicemail with no live conversation, so no selling or qualification could take place. No message was left beyond the initial greeting, missing an opportunity to engage the lead further.
Sara Habchi Shantanu 09:35 · 3:21 8/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, confirming the lead's name and current immigration status. She was polite and attempted to confirm information and set the stage for a detailed discussion.

What went wrong

The call was cut short due to technical issues before any detailed assessment or program presentation could be made. The caller did not ask about citizenship, language skills, work experience, or offer next steps. No consultation was booked or contact details confirmed, and the call ended abruptly without summary.
Sara Habchi Francis 09:39 · 7:34 14/26

What was good

The caller engaged in a detailed conversation with Francis, addressing his specific questions about OINP eligibility and PGWP timelines. They clearly explained the limitations and next steps regarding PR and work permits, providing realistic expectations without making illegal promises.

What went wrong

The caller did not introduce themselves or the company, which is a missed opportunity to build trust. They also failed to confirm contact details, offer a paid consultation, or lock in a next step, which weakens the sales process. Additionally, key personal details like age and education were not asked, limiting the assessment depth.
Sara Habchi Freddie 10:00 · 14:34 16/26

What was good

The caller established a clear, informative conversation with Freddie, confirming his status and education, and carefully explained the PR pathways and options available, including trades employment. The caller avoided any illegal promises and provided detailed information about the process and eligibility.

What went wrong

The caller missed asking about Freddie's age and did not mention the RCIC license or past successful cases to build trust. There was no offer of a paid consultation or locking in a next step, and contact details were not confirmed or summarized at the end, which are important for progressing the lead.
Sara Habchi Soham 10:26 · 0:47 7/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and identified the company, saying, "My name is Sarah, and I am a case manager with Evernorth." She confirmed the lead's name and respected the lead's wish to reschedule, offering to send a WhatsApp message for further contact.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any information about the lead's immigration status, goals, or background, missing an opportunity to assess eligibility or present relevant programs. No attempt was made to lock a specific date and time for a follow-up, and the call ended without summarizing any agreements or next steps explicitly.
Sara Habchi Shanda 10:38 · 0:58 8/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself clearly and confirmed the lead's name, then efficiently scheduled a specific appointment time, locking in 11:30 as agreed. This shows good control of the call flow and respect for the lead's availability.

What went wrong

The caller did not gather any information about the lead's immigration status, goals, or background, missing an opportunity to qualify the lead or build rapport. There was also no confirmation of contact details or a summary of the call, which are important for clarity and follow-up.
Sara Habchi — 10:40 · 0:49 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company, and left a concise message referencing the lead's interest and form submission.

What went wrong

This was a voicemail with no live conversation, so no opportunity to engage or qualify the lead further. No message was left beyond the initial greeting and introduction.
Sara Habchi Fastuodin 11:01 · 10:09 24/26

What was good

The caller clearly introduced themselves and the company, and engaged the lead by confirming details and discussing immigration options in detail. They handled objections well, explaining the need to wait for the visitor record extension and advising on next steps including emailing IRCC and booking a consultation. The caller also explained the Francophone mobility program and eligibility factors clearly.

What went wrong

The caller did not lock a specific date and time for the consultation, which would have strengthened the call outcome. Otherwise, the call was thorough and professional with no compliance issues or misleading promises.
Sara Habchi Shanda 11:30 · 10:47 21/25

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation with Shanda, confirming detailed information about her status, education, and work experience. They clearly explained the PR pathways and next steps, including the paid consultation and payment process, ensuring clarity throughout.

What went wrong

The caller missed opportunities to handle common objections like 'I'll think about it' and 'I'll do it myself.' Also, they did not lock in a specific date and time for the consultation, which could improve conversion rates.
Sara Habchi Asavant 12:04 · 10:34 22/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional conversation, confirming details and explaining the process clearly. They presented the Francophone mobility program well and offered a paid consultation, securing a follow-up call date. The caller also confirmed contact details and summarized the agreements effectively.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask about the lead's age or education, which are important for a full assessment. They also missed opportunities to handle common objections like 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself.' Otherwise, the call was well managed with no compliance issues.
Sara Habchi Richard 13:08 · 2:00 10/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, and addressed the lead by name, confirming the purpose of the call regarding permanent residency. She also correctly identified the lead's current immigration status and assessed eligibility by asking about the CRS score.

What went wrong

The caller did not explore key details such as age, education, language skills, or work experience, nor did she present any program options or explain next steps. No consultation was offered or scheduled, and contact details were not confirmed. The call ended abruptly without summarizing or handling objections, missing opportunities to engage the lead further.
Sara Habchi Mohammed 13:28 · 11:53 24/26

What was good

The caller conducted a thorough and professional consultation with Mohammed, confirming all relevant details and explaining the PR pathways clearly. The caller successfully booked a paid consultation and confirmed contact details, ensuring a smooth next step.

What went wrong

The caller did not handle any objections such as 'I'll think about it' or 'I'll do it myself,' which could have strengthened the engagement. Otherwise, the call was well managed with no compliance issues.
Riya Kathuria — 16:32 · 0:11 3/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves and the company clearly with "Hey, thanks for calling CrimeCore. This is Lucas."

What went wrong

The call ended very early after the initial greeting, with no opportunity to gather any information or offer services. The caller did not ask for the client's name or any qualifying questions, and no next steps were proposed.
Riya Kathuria — 16:33 · 0:35 3/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves and the company clearly with 'Hey, thanks for calling PrimeCore. This is Lucas.' There were no illegal promises made during the call.

What went wrong

The call was extremely short with no real interaction beyond the introduction and a question 'You still there?'. The caller did not ask for the lead's name or any qualifying information, nor did they attempt to engage or offer next steps. The call ended without any meaningful conversation or progress.
Riya Kathuria — 16:34 · 0:34 3/26

What was good

The caller introduced himself and the company clearly, saying 'This is Lucas' and 'Thanks for calling PrimeCore.' The tone was polite and professional throughout the brief interaction.

What went wrong

The caller did not engage the lead beyond the initial greeting and did not ask any qualifying questions or offer any next steps. The lead was only told the owner was unavailable and that someone would get back to them, which missed an opportunity to gather information or schedule a follow-up.
Riya Kathuria — 16:35 · 0:36 4/26

What was good

The caller introduced themselves and the company clearly and asked for the lead's name, showing an attempt to engage despite connection issues.

What went wrong

The call was very short and no substantive information was gathered or shared. The caller did not ask about the lead's situation or goals, nor did they offer any next steps or confirm details. The conversation ended abruptly without progressing.
Riya Kathuria Hassan 18:42 · 1:36 9/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, saying 'This is Ria calling from Evernorth Immigrations.' She confirmed the lead's identity and current immigration status, asking about the work permit expiry date. She also mentioned the pathway to PR and matching experience to the correct NOC code, showing some engagement with the lead's profile.

What went wrong

The caller did not ask for the lead's age, education, or language proficiency, nor did she assess eligibility or present a specific program. There was no explanation of steps or timelines, no mention of the RCIC licence, and no handling of common objections. The call ended without offering a next step, locking a date, confirming contact details, or summarizing agreements, missing key sales opportunities.
Riya Kathuria Yunes 19:51 · 0:52 6/26

What was good

The caller introduced the company clearly and confirmed the lead's name early in the call. They successfully arranged a specific callback time, saying '8 or 8:05 works,' which secures the next step.

What went wrong

The caller missed multiple opportunities to gather key information such as the lead's immigration goals, status, and eligibility. No program was presented nor was a paid consultation offered. The call ended quickly without confirming contact details or summarizing agreements.
Riya Kathuria — 20:00 · 0:43 0/0

What was good

The caller clearly identified themselves and the company in the voicemail greeting, saying "Hi, this is Ria calling from Evernaught Immigration."

What went wrong

The call reached voicemail and no message was left, so no opportunity to engage or advance the lead was taken.
Riya Kathuria — 20:53 · 0:15 0/0

What was good

The caller attempted to reach the lead promptly, showing initiative.

What went wrong

There was no response or interaction from the lead, resulting in no conversation to assess or progress the call.
Riya Kathuria Anlin Davis 20:54 · 14:04 20/26

What was good

The caller introduced herself and the company clearly, and gathered detailed information about the lead's status, education, work experience, and goals. She explained the services thoroughly, including the consultation offer and the role of licensed consultants, and avoided making any illegal promises.

What went wrong

The caller did not confirm contact details or lock in a specific date and time for the consultation, which are important to secure the next step. Also, there was no clear summary of agreements at the end, and some common objections like 'I'll think about it' were not addressed.
data check · 11 calls not matched to a lead · 1 leads without a phone number · 9 leads unassigned · reached counts every answered call, voicemail included